AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj in Miscellaneous Case No. 292 of 2017, arising out of Maintenance Case No. 58 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court enhanced the amount of maintenance payable to the OP No. 2 from rupees one thousand per month to rupees five thousand per month and directed the petitioner to pay the enhanced maintenance amount on or before 10th of every month starting from 11.10.2017. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. The learned trial Court has not considered the fact that OP No. 2 has started living separately from her husband as the OP No. 2 was in illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. It was opposed by the petitioner who made strong protest. For this reason, OP No. 2 voluntarily left her matrimonial home and started living in her parental home. Learned counsel further submits that OP No. 2 has been doing tailoring work and has been earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, but this fact was not appreciated by the learned Family Court. The petitioner has tried his best to restore his familial relations, but due to cruel nature of the OP No. 2 and her adulterous relationship, the matter could not be reconciled. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a labourer and is having a meagre income, but this fact was not considered by the learned Family Court. The petitioner has already been paying Rs. 1,000/- per month to the OP No. 2 in compliance of the order dated 09.03.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 58 of 2004 and hence this enhancement after a few years seems to be unjust. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No. 2 vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the OP No. 2 submits that the learned Family Court has fixed the enhanced maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month payable from the date 11.10.2017 and the order was passed on 30.09.2024. This amount cannot be stated to be excessive. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the parties have been considered before the passing of the order by the learned Family Court. The amount which was awarded to the OP No. 2 earlier was only Rs. 1,000/- per month and considering the inflation and the expenses, the said amount was much less for maintenance of the OP No. 2. Learned counsel also submits that even otherwise, no illegality, impropriety or irregularity has been shown in the impugned order and this Court cannot entertain such revision petition.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of impugned order, I find that it is a detailed order and the learned trial Court has considered the evidence of the parties and also considered the contentions which are being raised before this Court. Furthermore, the amount which has been awarded to the OP No. 2 in the Miscellaneous Case No. 292 of 2017, the same was done after due consideration of all materials available before it by the learned Family Court. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the same is affirmed.
Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.